The first account is about the story itself.
The second account is about the way the story is told.
In essence: the story itself had to be told, however, the way it is told is impure.
There are many different perspectives on how the tunnel vision in the story originated.
However, the emphasis in the way it was told in this movie is mainly based on Lucia de B's character and a fictional character.
The rest of the characters are pretty flat; either black or white / good or bad.
Where the movie totally failed is with the fictional character.
From a legal perspective, in Dutch law there is a doctrine that a judge or jury may or must destroy and ignore illegally obtained evidence. The party invoking this may therefore need evidence. Illegally obtained evidence is only allowed if it goes against what may be expected from a properly acting government. Illegally obtained evidence therefore always poses a high risk for a pure course of justice. The fictional character provides illegally obtained evidence that makes the story itself hard to believe. However, the role the fictational character was crucial to the outcome of this movie.
Such a shame. The actual story seems much more complex and should have been told from different perspectives on "the truth". Only in that way it could have been a genuine attempt to warn society about tunnel vision and harmfull opinions against people (and not just Lucia de B.).
As such, how the people behind this movie created this movie, is an example of tunnelvision too! On what? Laziness? Too much focus on whether or not the audience would be able to grasp reality? Too much focus on bashing "high society" that govern the medical and the legal society? Too much focus on the creation of a potential blockbuster movie ... ?
Anyway, I'm rooting for a documentary that at least makes a genuine attempt in grasping "the truth" from different perspectives since this story needs to be told "as is"!
